President Joe Biden's United States of America

[kEiThZ]

When they have had total control in DC,

For all of the 3 months that they had a filibuster proof Senate majority with a whole lot of conservative southern Democratic Senators, during a time when they were trying to pass healthcare legislation in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis? Sure, I guess it's their fault that they couldn't fix every single problem in America in 3 months. Better elect Republicans....

Thanks for proving my point. This is exactly why they are where they are today. The left is so desperate to get the circular firing squad going, they are even willing to let the Republicans take up minoritarian rule without much of a fight.

Let's see if a clear threat brings some mental clarity. I'm not all that hopeful though. I fully expect, that the progressive wing of the Democrats will be more interested in using this to attack other Democrats, than Republicans. I give it a week.

 

[picard102]

Just end it already. The coasts need to succeed.

 

[Northern Light]

For all of the 3 months that they had a filibuster proof Senate majority with a whole lot of conservative southern Democratic Senators, during a time when they were trying to pass healthcare legislation in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis? Sure, I guess it's their fault that they couldn't fix every single problem in America in 3 months. Better elect Republicans....

Thanks for proving my point. This is exactly why they are where they are today. The left is so desperate to get the circular firing squad going, they are even willing to let the Republicans take up minoritarian rule without much of a fight.

Let's see if a clear threat brings some mental clarity. I'm not all that hopeful though. I fully expect, that the progressive wing of the Democrats will be more interested in using this to attack other Democrats, than Republicans. I give it a week.

I would note, the filibuster rule was absurd and Dems could have nixed it. The Senate can modify its rules of procedure by a simple majority vote.

Of course, I would argue for abolishing the Senate or very strictly limiting its role to Constitutional Amendments, Wars and Treaties, but that would require a constitutional change, and is a non-starter at this point in time.

I'm not opposed to super majorities in limited circumstances, but having them as a default is an insult to the very concept of democratic (small d) accountability.

 

[kEiThZ]

I would note, the filibuster rule was absurd and Dems could have nixed it.

It is absurd. But there's no "Dems could have nixed it", when you're talking about a big tent party where Joe Manchin and Bernie Sanders are in the same party. And that language, with its insinuation that the Democrats could have done something but chose not to, is substantially responsible for some of the cynicism and apathy from Democratic base that plays right into Republican hands.

I think Manchin was right when he told Democrats who were upset with him to elect more liberals. That's how democracy works. Far too many liberals from urban districts like New York or lilly white rich states like Vermont forget what it's like to run in West Virginia or a suburb of Orlando or Houston. It's easy to criticize other party members when you have a safe seat. And persisting in that criticism to the point that you depress your party's own enthusiasm, just to boost your own career, is highly irresponsible.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

For all of the 3 months that they had a filibuster proof Senate majority with a whole lot of conservative southern Democratic Senators, during a time when they were trying to pass healthcare legislation in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis? Sure, I guess it's their fault that they couldn't fix every single problem in America in 3 months. Better elect Republicans....

Thanks for proving my point. This is exactly why they are where they are today. The left is so desperate to get the circular firing squad going, they are even willing to let the Republicans take up minoritarian rule without much of a fight.

Let's see if a clear threat brings some mental clarity. I'm not all that hopeful though. I fully expect, that the progressive wing of the Democrats will be more interested in using this to attack other Democrats, than Republicans. I give it a week.

Their system offers far less party discipline than ours - particularly at the Senate (which isn't vestigial like ours either). In any case, I just don't get the obsession with banning abortion in the US - especially in the context of how little lives are often being valued in general. In fact, from a purely utilitarian perspective - allowing easy access to abortion actually reduces social services outlay (nevermind a whole host of other secondary effects), which ought to be a win for the group that are most predisposed to be against it. Such contradictions.

AoD

 

[kEiThZ]

Their system offers far less party discipline than ours - particularly at the Senate

Which is why it's kinda ridiculous to argue that "the Democrats" could have stopped this. They couldn't. They are a highly fractured party that is supported by a more diverse base. I fear this isn't going to get better for the Democrats though. Their failure to win more Senate seats ultimately means they need to rely on the likes of Manchin and Sinema.

In any case, I just don't get the obsession with banning abortion in the US

There's the whole history of how Republican strategiats decided to use abortion and pro-life issues to break away religious folks, after losing the segregation fights. Having peeled those folks away and having become more reliant on those votes, the GOP then couldn't backpedal.

For the longest time, they could rely on "settled law" wink-wink-nudge-nudge. But then along came Donald Trump who decided he needed to actually return the favour to the evangelicals who elected him. And now they slowly drift towards becoming North American Iran.

 

[Northern Light]

Statement out from the U.S. Supreme Court concerning the leak.

The document is conceded to be authentic, but note Justice Roberts going out of his way to say this does not represent a final decision of the Court.

I'm not sure what would cause more challenge for U.S. society, this decision, as written, coming out; or the Court seemingly reversing itself when a decision is made public in the next couple of months.

Lots of very unhappy people either way.

 

[kEiThZ]

The reason it was leaked is likely to pressure the conservative justices to stick to this decision. Whoever leaked this, doesn't want anybody wavering or putting out a softer decision. They want this draft.

And the best part of this leak, is that everybody thinks some liberal clerk did it and they get to rail about that for months.

 

[PinkLucy]

I immediately assumed it was the Republicans who leaked it

 

[Richard White]

The reason it was leaked is likely to pressure the conservative justices to stick to this decision. Whoever leaked this, doesn't want anybody wavering or putting out a softer decision. They want this draft.

And the best part of this leak, is that everybody thinks some liberal clerk did it and they get to rail about that for months.

I can see it going the other way.

No doubt it will cause backlash against the Republicans in an election year. I can seem them backtracking if public opinion turns out not to be in their favor.

 

[lenaitch]

Decent analysis from the NPR website:

What even is a draft opinion? Here's how the Supreme Court's process works

The court says it's routine for justices to circulate draft opinions internally. It's part of a larger procedure that involves deliberating, voting and assigning writers.

www.npr.org

 

[Admiral Beez]

For all of the 3 months that they had a filibuster proof Senate majority with a whole lot of conservative southern Democratic Senators, during a time when they were trying to pass healthcare legislation in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis?

If the Dems had pushed RBG to retire when Obama had majorities in both houses they’d be one Justice up. But no, the Dems seem to proceed blindly around every corner.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

If the Dems had pushed RBG to retire when Obama had majorities in both houses they’d be one Justice up. But no, the Dems seem to proceed blindly around every corner.

I don't think they can *push* anyone to retire - the justices are pretty much immune to outside pressure. Think - they couldn't even push Manchin to vote properly in the Senate.

In any case - I know this is a zero-sum game - but does anyone think that a party being able to "push" a justice to retire to be a particularly good idea?

AoD

 

[picard102]

I don't think they can *push* anyone to retire

They just did with Breyer.

 

[Admiral Beez]

They just did with Breyer.

That was my thinking too. Why not RBG? You can't fire a SCOTUS Justice, but you can ask and recommend to them.

U.S. Justice Ginsburg hits back at liberals who want her to retire

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has a message for liberals who have been saying the 81-year-old should step down while Democratic President Barack Obama is in office so he can appoint her successor: Who are you going to get who will be better than me?

www.reuters.com